T Clark Powell1, Sarah E Dilley2, Sejong Bae3, J Michael Straughn2, Kenneth H Kim2, Charles A Leath2. 1. Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 2. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL. 3. Division of Preventative Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite screening, disparities exist in cervical cancer incidence and outcomes. Demographic factors are associated with diagnosis at advanced stage (AS), but less is known about geographic factors. We sought to investigate risk factors for developing AS cervical cancer in Alabama. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified women treated for cervical cancer from 2005 to 2015 at our institution. Stages II-IV were considered AS. ZIP codes were categorized by federal Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes, and 16 historically underserved counties were categorized as Black Belt rural. Using data from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, we identified women's health provider locations. We explored associations between stage and multiple factors using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 934 patients, 29.2% were black, 52.7% had AS cancer, and 63.4% lived in urban areas. Average distance to nearest American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Fellow in urban, rural, and Black Belt rural areas was 5.0, 10.6, and 13.7 miles, respectively. Black race, public insurance and age of older than 65 years were associated with increased risk of AS cancer. Living in a rural area trended toward higher risk but was not significant. When stratified by race, insurance status and age were associated with AS cancer in white women only. CONCLUSIONS: Living further from a women's health provider or in a rural area was not associated with a higher risk of AS cervical cancer. Black women had a higher risk of AS than white women regardless of age, insurance status, and geography. Disparities in cervical cancer are multifactorial and necessitate further research into socioeconomic, biologic, and systems causes.
OBJECTIVES: Despite screening, disparities exist in cervical cancer incidence and outcomes. Demographic factors are associated with diagnosis at advanced stage (AS), but less is known about geographic factors. We sought to investigate risk factors for developing AS cervical cancer in Alabama. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified women treated for cervical cancer from 2005 to 2015 at our institution. Stages II-IV were considered AS. ZIP codes were categorized by federal Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes, and 16 historically underserved counties were categorized as Black Belt rural. Using data from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, we identified women's health provider locations. We explored associations between stage and multiple factors using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 934 patients, 29.2% were black, 52.7% had AS cancer, and 63.4% lived in urban areas. Average distance to nearest American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Fellow in urban, rural, and Black Belt rural areas was 5.0, 10.6, and 13.7 miles, respectively. Black race, public insurance and age of older than 65 years were associated with increased risk of AS cancer. Living in a rural area trended toward higher risk but was not significant. When stratified by race, insurance status and age were associated with AS cancer in white women only. CONCLUSIONS: Living further from a women's health provider or in a rural area was not associated with a higher risk of AS cervical cancer. Black women had a higher risk of AS than white women regardless of age, insurance status, and geography. Disparities in cervical cancer are multifactorial and necessitate further research into socioeconomic, biologic, and systems causes.
Authors: Charles A Leath; J Michael Straughn; Tyler O Kirby; Adam Huggins; Edward E Partridge; Groesbeck P Parham Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2005-08-30 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Linda C Harlan; Amanda L Greene; Limin X Clegg; Margaret Mooney; Jennifer L Stevens; Martin L Brown Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-21 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lea E Widdice; David I Bernstein; Anthony C Leonard; Keith A Marsolo; Jessica A Kahn Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-12-13 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Sachin K Deshmukh; Shafquat Azim; Aamir Ahmad; Haseeb Zubair; Nikhil Tyagi; Sanjeev K Srivastava; Arun Bhardwaj; Seema Singh; Rodney P Rocconi; Ajay P Singh Journal: Am J Cancer Res Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: Lois M Ramondetta; Larissa A Meyer; Kathleen M Schmeler; Maria E Daheri; Jessica Gallegos; Michael Scheurer; Jane R Montealegre; Andrea Milbourne; Matthew L Anderson; Charlotte C Sun Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Marquita W Lewis-Thames; Leslie R Carnahan; Aimee S James; Karriem S Watson; Yamilé Molina Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2020-01-11 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Smita Bhatia; Wendy Landier; Electra D Paskett; Katherine B Peters; Janette K Merrill; Jonathan Phillips; Raymond U Osarogiagbon Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-07-11 Impact factor: 11.816